Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 086

Thursday, July 13 2006

• RE: Tzaar Ba'alei Chaim
• [none]
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: Capital punishment
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: kiyem Avraham Avinu kol haTorah?
• Re: Tzaar Ba'alei Chaim
• Re: Tzaar Ba'alei Chaim
• Re: Capital punishment
• Re: Not washing for meal on Shabbos?
• RE: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: Avodah V17 #85
• tzedakah for non-Jews
• Re: tzedakah for non-Jews
• RE: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Fwd: [Hakhel] Urgent Request for 17 Tammuz
• As the situation in Israel deteriorates...

R' Jacob Farkas (re: trusting Shochtim):
> Issur V'hetter allows for the testimony of Eid ehad, provided that his/her
> Hezqas Kashrus is intact. However, s/he would still be disqualified if
> called in to testify for matters in which s/he is Noge'a BeDavar.

The mekor of Eid echad is from v'safrah lah - l'atzmah. She is certainly
no'ga'as b'davr, and yet she is believed.

KT,
MYG

Jacob farkas wrote:
>I don't suppose my knowing a PETA member and vouching for his integrity
>would change your mind either (hypothetically speaking). You would find
>him to be Noge'a beDavar, or hypersensitive to the plight of animals.  I
>don't discount the Shokhet's trustworthiness, but his line of work frames
>his position on animal welfare matters in a light that is unfair to
>introduce when discussing TZBH. In legal terms, his testimony on these
>matters would be considered conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest or expert testimony? Saying that a shochet's line
of work frames his positions on animal welfare matters in a light that is
unfair to introduce when discussing TZBH implies suggests some antagonism
against the institution of shechita in general.

jacob

In Avodah V17 #85, RMBluke wrote:
> I would guess that in future
> generations the end of the era of the Acharonim is going to be marked
> sometime in the past 20 years and all the new sefarim coming out will
> be given some new characterization.

and the original RMB (a/k/a/ Micha) replied:
> Frankly, I'm dreaming there will be a Sanhedrin before any new halachic
> era gets off the ground.

Hear, hear. I was going to prayfully suggest that new s'farim i'y'H'
will be classified as PM (post Mashiach), while the sifrai Acharonim
will also be known as AM (ante Mashiach).

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

> Even TK felt that the
> application of capital punishment was such a technical improbability
> that a Sanhedrin who authorized one in seven was Hovlanis.

No. A BD that executes more than one person in 7 years is not Hovlanit
because it should have found an excuse to acquit him. It's Hovlanit
because it should have made sure that such crimes are not committed in
its jurisdiction, both by education and by strict enforcement of the
lesser penalties.

The Rambam clarifies that if a BD happens to have 100 cases present
themselves, one day after another, then they must execute them all,
and may not shrink from the duty out of some sense that it would be
wrong to kill all those people.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:42:35PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: I don't think that it would be particularly wild to mark the
: beginning of the current era after the printing of the Mishna
: Berurah.

That's taking a particularly Litvish Ashkenazi-centric view of
what defines an era. The Mishna, and Shas were accepted by all of
klal yisrael, and the Shulchan Aruch was accepted by nearly everybody
(Yemenites are the only exception I'm personally aware of). Compared to
these Mishna Berura is accepted as psak by a *much* smaller audience.
Sepharadim don't consider the Mishna Berura to be halacha l'maase. In
fact, in the last 150 years, there have been three (and a half)
comprehensive works of halacha published in the Sepharadi world:
 * Ben Ish Chai
 * Kaf HaChayim
 * Yalkut Yosef (R' Yitzchak Yosef, ROY's son)
(the half is Halacha Berura by R' David Yosef, ROY's other son. It's
still very much in progress, currently 7 volumes covering less than half
of Orach Chaim, but will be even more comprehensive than Yalkut Yosef
when it's complete.)

Other groups that don't consider the Mishna Berura to be Halacha L'maase
include Chabad Chassidim (and maybe other types of Chassidim), as well
as Yemenites (and if there's anyone else who didn't accept the Shulchan
Aruch, then they certainly don't accept the Mishna Berura)

If we are in a new era, it's not because of the Mishna Berura.

 -Ken Bloom

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:49:16PM +0300, Reuven Miller wrote:
>: Are we to take literaly the chazal on Yuma 28b (daf hayomi) that Avraham
>: Avinu a"h kept all the mitzvot including the Rabbanan?

> Didn't we discuss this on list (vol12)? In particular, RMMS's idea
> (consitant with Nefesh haChaim) that they were meqaymim the yesodos
> behind the mitzvos...
> Before that (vol 10) RJR instigated a similar conversation while searching
> for sources for the pages he offered to mail.

Isn't is redundent to argue an issue which the Rishonim and 
Achronim already discussed?
Look at the mefarshim on the Possuk, 
Breishis Perek 26 Possuk 5 an you'll see many different 
explanations. For a short cut you look at Ma'asei Hashem 
he brings down many others pshatim along with his

> Jacob Farkas (re: trusting Shochtim):
>> Issur V'hetter allows for the testimony of Eid ehad, provided that his/her
>> Hezqas Kashrus is intact. However, s/he would still be disqualified if
>> called in to testify for matters in which s/he is Noge'a BeDavar.

R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
> The mekor of Eid echad is from v'safrah lah - l'atzmah. She is certainly
> no'ga'as b'davr, and yet she is believed.

And why not? Issur V'Hetter testimony is different, but that doesn't
mean that everything the woman says for all of her life carries the same
weight, particularly in cases where conflict of interest arises.

Jacob Farkas

> Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> I don't suppose my knowing a PETA member and vouching for his integrity
>> would change your mind either (hypothetically speaking). You would find
>> him to be Noge'a beDavar, or hypersensitive to the plight of animals.  I
>> don't discount the Shokhet's trustworthiness, but his line of work frames
>> his position on animal welfare matters in a light that is unfair to
>> introduce when discussing TZBH. In legal terms, his testimony on these
>> matters would be considered conflict of interest.

R' Jacob Sasson wrote:
> Conflict of interest or expert testimony? Saying that a shochet's line
> of work frames his positions on animal welfare matters in a light that is
> unfair to introduce when discussing TZBH implies suggests some antagonism
> against the institution of shechita in general.

Expert testimony would be where a Shokhet would be called upon to testify
about the specifics of Shehita or Bediqa, or anything related to the
activities he engages in, perhaps even extending to workplace specific
questions and practices.

That antagonism is detected against Shehita based on my comments is
perhaps a reflection of my failure to express my opinion appropriately.
Shokhtim are part of the poultry/meat industry. Their livelihood depends
on it. The *industry* is being charged with acting cruelly towards
calves or geese. The testimony of a member of the industry refuting a
complaint directed at said industry is to be viewed in context of the
person's position, however honorable and trustworthy the person.

This is not unlike the old Haqira about why we disqualify the testimony
of Noge'a B'Davar, if it is because the person is considered a Ba'al
Davar in the case, and therefore because Adam Qarov eitzel Atzmo he is
automatically disqualified [Qarov is Pasul even if Moshe Rabeinu were to
testify for Aharon], or is Noge'a Pasul because of Hashash Meshaqeir.
The Nafqa Minah would be if his testimony contains portions that are
not subject to Hilkhos Eidus, such as statements of fact, if the Noge'a
beDavar has an interest that could cause an unscrupulous person to lie
because of financial interest, his testimony is disregarded even if he
is completely Ehrlikh, because of Hashash MeShaqeir.

Another point. Not every criticism of animal welfare disregard pointed
at cattle farming industry is a criticism against the institution of
Shehita. Proper animal treatment and Shehita can and have and should
coexist, and were never intended to be mutually exclusive. It's easy to
dismiss criticism of specific practice by labeling the criticizers as
Anti-Shehitah, but IMHO that is just another way of proverbially burying
one's head in the sand. A better response would be a) factual evidence
of proper treatment, or b) proof that current treatment is within the
guidelines of Halakhah.

Jacob Farkas

>> Even TK felt that the
>> application of capital punishment was such a technical improbability
>> that a Sanhedrin who authorized one in seven was Hovlanis.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> No. A BD that executes more than one person in 7 years is not Hovlanit
> because it should have found an excuse to acquit him. It's Hovlanit
> because it should have made sure that such crimes are not committed in
> its jurisdiction, both by education and by strict enforcement of the
> lesser penalties.

Withholding capital punishment is not acquittal, per se. The criteria for
Misas Beis Din are very specific and are very open to enable a BD seeking
to avoid applying MBB to find a way out. This doesn't mean that BD would
have the defendant walk scott free. Therefore, by having a BD that did
apply MBB once in seven years, it is considered to be overly punitive.

Furthermore, MBB is not exclusive to violent crimes. Hilul Shabbos is
punishable by MBB. The "broken windows" theory can curb violence, but
how would it prevent haOseh Shtei Batei Nirin?

Jacob Farkas

On 6/24/06, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> I just had a guest for Shabbos who is from Turkish -Mexican ancestry. He
> says they have a minhag that only the head of the household washes for
> the meal on Shabbos - but they all eat bread. He says it is not  
> just his family but they knows others from Mexican background who  
> also have this minhag.
> Has anyonee heard of such a practice and what the basis is?

Fascinating! I know a family of Cuban background that also does this.
However, the fact that this family is Conservative may muddy the waters
a bit. When I heard about their practice, I simply thought it was a
Conservative thing, rather than a minhag of Caribbean/Central Americans.

Naomi Israel

R' Ken Bloom:
> That's taking a particularly Litvish Ashkenazi-centric view of
> what defines an era. 

Guilty as charged. 

> The Mishna, and Shas were accepted by all of
> klal yisrael, and the Shulchan Aruch was accepted by nearly everybody
> (Yemenites are the only exception I'm personally aware of). Compared to
> these Mishna Berura is accepted as psak by a *much* smaller audience.

According to Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions), Askenazim
constitute around 80% of Jews worldwide.

> Sepharadim don't consider the Mishna Berura to be halacha l'maase. In
> fact, in the last 150 years, there have been three (and a half)
> comprehensive works of halacha published in the Sepharadi world:
...

I don't think these seforim had as significant an impact on their
constituencies as the Mishna Berurah had on its adopters.

<SNIP>
> If we are in a new era, it's not because of the Mishna Berura.

Can you suggest an across-the-board substitute? Or, do you believe there
is none?

KT,
MYG

RMB wrote:
> Is application without interpretation possible?

If you want to nitpick, no, however, if we are asking whether any
deviations from the objective standard of the beit din hagadol would
be substantial, then yes, application could exist with a sufficiently
negligible element of reinterpretation.

> You have yet to show me -- or I have yet to remember -- how you're so
> sure that there were no unresolved machloqesin deOraisa. There were
> during the Sanhedrin of bayis sheini (until its end in Teveryah). If
> the role of Sanhedrin was to resolve every machloqes, the mishnah and
> Yerushalmi would read quite differently.

My contention is that they had thrice yearly rabbinical conventions
called 'aliyah leregel. Hence, too great differences would be unlikely
to develop.

But you are right that unresolved ma'hloqes did exist while Sanhedrin
was still in operation. Perhaps that shows that even for the resolution
of doubt there is a need of considerable moral authority. The Sanhedrin
may not always have felt it had that kind of authority.

> And, during bayis rishon everyone had a more local body capable of
> setting local pesaq. So, why not?

The purpose of the local bodies wasn't to create divergent traditions,
but to apply the law. Of course, I grant you that in premodern times, with
premodern communication media, and even more so in ancient times, before
the committing of TSBP to writing, there could exist more significant
differences between the psaq of batei din. I can imagine that making
your own drasha was more fashionable then than now, however, I still
believe that significant differences would not be maintained but would
rather be evened out over time. Sore thumb ma'hloqet would give rise
to the presentation of a query before the BD hagadol in Y-M.

> I would think Sanhedrin would only be necessary for questions that
> 1- require their expertise,
> 2- have impact that can't be localized (inyanei yuchsin, for example),
> or
> 3- became major arguments that threatened ideological unity.

That last one is a considerable issue. However, yu'hsin seems especially
a good candidate for treatment by local batei din.

 - a

> Shalom is no lightweight  
> excuse like _mishum eiva_, it's an active priority in its own right.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason to give tzedakah to non-Jews
because of darchei shalom only came into existence during galus and
not when we were at 'peace' in our own land. Either way, darchei shalom
seems to be a din d'rabbanan and not the ikkur mitzvah of the Torah.

cbk

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:55:42PM -0500, cbk wrote:
: But, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason to give tzedakah to non-Jews
: because of darchei shalom only came into existence during galus and
: not when we were at 'peace' in our own land. Either way, darchei shalom
: seems to be a din d'rabbanan and not the ikkur mitzvah of the Torah.

Darkhei Shalom is, according to R' Aharon Lichtenstein, part of
"vehalakhta bidrakhav". I even tend to spell "Shalom" capitalized in
this instance, as it seems to me that we're using it in a context where
it qualifies as a sheim Hashem.

It is thus deOraisa.

See RnCL's wonderful discussion of R' Unterman's raayos for the idea
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n001.shtml#11>. Also, as she
notes, a perusal of the phrase's usage as listed in the Encyc. Talmudit
will clearly show that it doesn't resemble mishum eivah.

(First discussions of this topic was back in vol2!)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 7/12/06, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
>> I don't think that it would be particularly wild to mark the beginning
>> of the current era after the printing of the Mishna Berurah.

> I think it has to be later. The Chazon Ish, R' Moshe, RSZA all
> disagree with the MB. I don't think anyone today would disagree with
> the MB.

I think the cutoff is having reached Horaah before Churban Europe.

 -Shmuel

P.S. Hello again everyone since I haven't posted in quite a while.

By the time I saw this, their "today" became yesterday, but the list of
capitlach Tehillim could be of use.

-mi

Subject: Urgent Request for 17 Tammuz
From:    "Hakhel MIS" <postmaster@hakhel.info>
Date:    Wed, July 12, 2006 10:21 pm
To:      hakhel@hakhel.info

Urgent Request

Because of the current crisis in Eretz Yisroel and at the urging of
rabbonim, we are asking that you organize today in your shul the special
recitation of Tehillim, either before or after Mincha, for the sake of
our brethren.

Suggested kapitlach --6, 13, 20, 22, 30, 79, 83, 121, 130, 142.

Individuals are urged to do so on your own as well if you cannot be part
of a tzibbur.

You are also asked to learn for a zechus for our brethren as well.

--------------------------
Hakhel MIS
--------------------------

Passing along an email I received today, Shiva Asar BeTamuz. Although
this is not the normal Avodah fare, today is not a normal day. -- TK

 -----Original Message-----
From: Ravkj@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:10 AM
To:  congkjbs@yahoo.com
Subject: As the situation in Israel  deteriorates...

As I write to you, the situation in Israel on the northern border
continues to worsen. With katyushas raining down on Nahariya (killing
one woman), the striking against Tzefat with katyushas and the threat
by Hizzbullah to hit Haifa, the dozens injured...all of these add up to
a very difficult time ahead for our fellow Jews in Israel. While we
walk safely down our street, thousands of Jews spend this Shiva Asar
B'Tammuz in bomb shelters protected (please G-d!) from katyushas.

At the same time, we can not forget that IDF forces are in Gaza
attempting to rescue Gilad Shalit and are themselves in constant danger.

So, what course of action can WE take at this troubling time? I would
suggest a number of things:

* For those of you with friends/relatives in Israel...call them! Tell
them you are thinking about them and just be a source of comfort,
at least via long distance.

* Whatever learning you would normally do, INCREASE the amount..no
matter how small. If you learn a half hour, learn for 45 minutes,
etc. The point is that if worldwide we can increase the amount of Torah
learning, we can make a difference in Shamayim!

* When you learn, say out loud that you are learning for the Zechut
(benefit) of those in danger in Israel.

* Say Tehillim! This is a long-standing action among Jews for
centuries. The words of David HaMelech have helped us withstand calamity
for 1000's of years.

* A special note to those shuls that do not recite the Mi Sheberach for
the IDF: Whatever your reasons for not saying this Mi Sheberach...I urge
you to look beyond politics! Take note of the fact that our soldiers
(yes, they are OUR soldiers) are in grave danger. They need all of
the Tefillot we can arrange for them. PLEASE...say this special Mi
Sheberach! For those who daven where it is not said, URGE your rabbi
to say it.

* For those who will be traveling to Israel in the near future, GIVE
BLOOD at Magen David Adom

* In your tefillot, keep in mind Gilad ben Aviva Shalit and the two
other soldiers whose names have just been released: Ehud Goldwasser, 31,
from Nahariya and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin. (Their mothers'
Hebrew names have not been published).

Share this email with others in order to encourage as many people to
take whatever action that they may be able to take!

Finally, at Congregation KJBS, we will be saying an extended Tehillim
today (Shiva Asar B'Tammuz) right after Mincha (which is at 8pm). Please
make every attempt to be at KJBS (or any other place saying Tehillim)
this evening.

Rabbi Zev M  Shandalov
Cong KJBS
Chicago, IL 

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]